Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

An anonymous reader writes "A group of four NY state senators have written a paper suggesting that free speech should be looked upon as a government granted privilege rather than a right. They're specifically concerned about cyberstalking and cyberbullying, and are introducing legislation to make both of those against the law. Among other troubling concepts, they argue that merely 'excluding' someone from a group is a form of cyberbullying."

I knew they were Democrats when their political affiliation wasn't mentioned in the headline. Seriously, it's a strange trend you'll begin to notice if you follow the news--when Democrat politicians do something unpopular, political affiliation is often left unmentioned.

If you're going to look at it that way, did they state the religious affiliation of the guy who crashed his plane into the IRS building, or the guy who shot up the Holocaust museum in DC, or the guy who shot Congresswoman Giffords, or the guy who threatened to blow up the Bed Bath and Beyond? They were all Christians and these were all recent incidents.

I read the IRS guy's manifesto on the day that it happened, and I looked it up again just now to be sure. The only time he mentions religion is to pillory the Catholic church and then "organized religion" more generally. That doesn't prove he wasn't a Christian of any stripe, but in the absence of any evidence that he was (which I'm having trouble finding), it does make it seem less likely.

Loughner (the "guy who shot Congresswoman Giffords") was almost certainly not a Christian. A little googling reve

And what do that link prove? Nothing. It doesn't even link to a video... it just links to someones account. If you have an actual case of FoxNews or whomever calling a republican "democrat" in response to wrong doing, THEN EFFING PROVE IT.

Actually it's a playlist (only a few hundred) of that user's videos, each of which document specific intentional falsehoods perpetrated by the so-called Fox News. This isn't some great conspiracy to smear Fox, you know? If you're as interested in this issue as your shrill rage suggests, you should try watching one or two.

If you have enough time to post, you have enough time to toss your question into google and find more. I also have that time! Here you go.

ah the intelligent people who make the same broad cultural insinuations about said 'anti-intellectuals' (people who don't agree with their selectively biased quackery), while wearing said quackery as chips on their shoulders and clamoring for 'hate speech' style laws to shield them from criticism.

the left biased intelligentsia coming out of today's universities needs to learn that facts (all of them) and the resulting truth matters more than what they feel about it. true rapport doesn't come from shielding the truth whenever it hurts someone's feelings...whether it's a parent talking to a tweenager or a bunch of yale graduate politicians writing legislation. in fact, people who suffer selection bias based on feelings should not be considered especially intelligent or of good character.

Or their actions are outright blamed on their opponents, as was the case with the Obama-as-Hitler protest signs. It didn't matter that they had LaRouchePac written right on them, they're still associated with the right-wing to this day.

This is because Americans are so stupidly caught up in this two-party mentality, they think politics is like a stupid sports game, with two sides, one winner and one loser. So if you say anything against one "side", then you must automatically be rooting for the other "side". I see it all the time on these discussion forums. Say anything critical about Obama (who's been a great Republican president so far), and someone will call you a "teabagger" or Republican or similar. Say anything critical about the current Republican politicians and someone will call you a liberal or Democrat or similar. And even if you're posting under the same moniker, no one ever seems to notice when you're bashing both sides, and just can't seem to wrap their minds around the idea that someone might favor neither "side".

Seriously, it's a strange trend you'll begin to notice if you follow the news--when Democrat politicians do something unpopular, political affiliation is often left unmentioned.

That sounds like a pretty important thing to have some actual data on. If you have skills cutting code, and you sincerely believe that is happening, you should scrape some news sites, run the stats, and hang the documented bias flag around the neck of the culprits.

Short of that, on the other hand, it sounds like you're making unfound

Only thats not at all what's written. Read the entire report [nysenate.gov] for yourself, you'll be pleasantly suprised.
The quote given is taken completely out of context, infacT the report notes on the page previous that

THE CHALLENGE LIES IN PROTECTING TEENAGERS FROM CYBERBULLYING WITHOUT
TRAMPLING ON THE FREE SPEECH PROTECTIONS AFFORDED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
THIS PROPOSED LEGISLATION ACCOMPLISHES THAT IN THE FOLLOWING WAY:

The report has some fairly decently nuanced considerations and is being damned by a single, out of context quote. Hell read onto the next page if you like

IN SUMMARY, ALTHOUGH SPEECH IS GENERALLY PROTECTED UNDER THE FIRST
AMENDMENT, THERE ARE INSTANCES IN WHICH RESTRICTIONS ARE WARRANTED. IN

HOLY SHIT, THEYRE CONSIDERING THE LAW AS IT'S WRITTEN AND APPLIED IN THE REAL WORLD, NOT MY IDEOLOGICAL BUNKER!!!!!

Only thats not at all what's written. Read the entire report [nysenate.gov] for yourself, you'll be pleasantly suprised.
The report has some fairly decently nuanced considerations and is being damned by a single, out of context quote. Hell read onto the next page if you like

IN SUMMARY, ALTHOUGH SPEECH IS GENERALLY PROTECTED UNDER THE FIRST
AMENDMENT, THERE ARE INSTANCES IN WHICH RESTRICTIONS ARE WARRANTED. IN

HOLY SHIT, THEYRE CONSIDERING THE LAW AS IT'S WRITTEN AND APPLIED IN THE REAL WORLD, NOT MY IDEOLOGICAL BUNKER!!!!!

Actually, no. The first amendment is pretty clear - and prior restraint is a violation of free speech. Just because something is bad doesn't mean you should ban it - you can still make certain types of statements a crime - but to suggest that preventing someone from uttering them is not a first amendment violation is wrong, IMHO.

They may be trying to make a good faith effort to not violate the first, but I think they fail.

ALTHOUGH SPEECH IS GENERALLY PROTECTED UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT, THERE ARE INSTANCES IN WHICH RESTRICTIONS ARE WARRANTED.

HOLY SHIT, THEYRE CONSIDERING THE LAW AS IT'S WRITTEN AND APPLIED IN THE REAL WORLD

There is no "general protection" for speech in the first amendment, there is absolute protection:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Considering the 1st amendment as absolute protection is something that I'm pretty sure has absolutely never been done. There's precedent out the wazoo for it, from defamation laws to false advertising laws to copyright laws.

IN SUMMARY, ALTHOUGH SPEECH IS GENERALLY PROTECTED UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT, THERE ARE INSTANCES IN WHICH RESTRICTIONS ARE WARRANTED. IN VIRGINIA V. BLACK, FOR EXAMPLE, THE COURT RULED THAT “THE PROTECTIONS AFFORDED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT () ARE NOT ABSOLUTE, AND WE HAVE LONG RECOGNIZED THAT THE GOVERNMENT MAY REGULATE CERTAIN CATEGORIES OFEXPRESSION CONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTION. THE FIRST AMENDMENT PERMITS ‘RESTRICTIONS UPON THE CONTENT OF SPEECH IN A FEW LIMITED AREAS, WHICH ARE OF SUCH SLIGHT SOCIAL VALUE AS A STEP TO TRUTH THAT ANY BENEFIT DERIVED FROM THEM IS CLEARLY OUTWEIGHED BY THE SOCIAL INTEREST IN ORDER AND MORALITY.’”

...

THE NEWYORK COURT OF APPEALS FOUND THAT PORTION OF THE STATE’S HARASSMENT LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL EXPLAINING THAT SPEECH MAY BE “ABUSIVE,” EVEN “VULGAR, DERISIVE, AND PROVOCATIVE,” AND STILL NOT FALL WITHIN THE REALM OF “CONSTITUTIONALLY PROSCRIBABLE EXPRESSION.” THE COURT FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT SPEECH COULD ONLY BE RESTRICTED WITH REGARDS TO “WORDS THAT INFLICT INJURY OR OTHERWISE INCITE IMMEDIATE VIOLENCE OR [BREACHES] OF PEACE,” AND THAT IS WHAT REMAINS THE LAW NOW. THE INDEPENDENT DEMOCRATIC CONFERENCE BELIEVES THERE SHOULD BE CONSEQUENCES FOR THOSE WHO CYBERBULLY AND COMMIT BULLYCIDE AND THAT THOSE CONSEQUENCES PROPOSED IN THIS BILL ARE WITHIN THE ABOVE STATED PARAMETERS OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

It's possible to exercise freedom outside the perfectly defined bounds of the First Amendment, you know.

It's also possible to govern without trying to be everyone's Mom. Why should we tolerate governments trying to take away every tiny sliver of human freedom except the ones that are explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights? We all know these people would take away even more freedoms if they could get away with it.

Do you want the author of this piece arrested for "Cyberbullying"? Or the Slashdot editors? Just wondering.

I agree that the report [nysenate.gov] is primarly an informative piece with a few suggested policies. I disagree with your conclusion; you seem to think the inclusion of moderate language and statements somehow offsets the damage that these policies, and this mindset, would do to our freedoms. Policy is often a one way street and it is hard to regain freedoms once lost.

Yes, cyber-bullying is an issue. No, this guys extreme view on the 'privilege' of free speech isn't going to help prevent kids from being bullies.

cyberbullying. root word: bullying. THE SAME SHIT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOREVER. except now you put "... on a computer!" and are granted a new patent I MEAN a new call to action to restrict the rights of citizens BECAUSE OF THE CHILDREN!

rights, mind you, that aren't meant to be restricted. these are not rights granted by the government. these are rights inherent to all people by virtue of their being people -- these are simply rights which the government has recognized the infringement of is inexcusable and tyrannical.

I like the part of the bill where it mentions "...USING ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION DIRECTED AT A CHILD UNDER THE AGE OF TWENTY-ONE YEARS,...".. "CAUSES MATERIAL HARM TO THE MENTAL OR EMOTIONAL HEALTH, SAFETY OR PROPERTY OF SUCH CHILD."

And yes, they do say free speech is a privilege GRANTED BY THE FUCKING STATE -- and not an inborn, inalienable right.What bullshit.This is not the use of force to prevent the unjust use of force, these fucktwits have corrupted Mills for their own big-government nanny-state ends. This is simply the outright abuse of force and twisting of the very concept of our rights recognized, not granted, by the government. I'm sorry. Words do not hurt. You can call me what you want -- it only affects me as much as I allow it.

You want to deal with cyberbullying? Get some fucking parents with half a clue to raise their kids. Get some schools that aren't afraid to deal with troublesome students. And yes, they are. Little Jimmy, you see, is special needs, and only acts out because of his bullshit ADHD -- and his parents, gosh, any time the school punishes Jimmy they're down there causing a ruckus because they KNOW Jimmy didn't punch that poor boy and call him a fag! Jimmy wouldn't do that!

Kids: Ignore unkind words that bother you. If someone physically harms you, that's fucking assault and don't let the school fucking feed you any bullshit -- you were fucking assaulted, and if they don't want to deal with it get the fucking cops involved. No, it's not fair you keep getting picked on. Life's not fair. Don't do stupid shit like take nude photos of yourself -- they WILL be distributed, what the hell were you even thinking in the first place. The more you let the bullies know this shit bothers you, the more they will bother you.

This law? This law is bullshit. Flaming some 20 year old is not a crime. I don't give half a fuck. This very post could be argued to cause "... MATERIAL HARM TO THE MENTAL OR EMOTIONAL HEALTH, SAFETY OR PROPERTY OF SUCH CHILD". Fuck that. A child under 21? Since when were fucking children able to enter into binding legal contracts.

Oh, and the one citation of a court case I saw in that mess of shit? Was for a case involving cross burning. They used that to justify their crap. Y'see, the difference is, in that case, the burning of the crosses was intended to intimidate -- it was a threat. There are actually already laws regarding the making of threats of violence. Nope, let's not apply those, let's just throw the fucking philosophical foundation of our constitution in the shitter FOR THE CHILDREN!

You were that easily fooled? It's exactly like saying - "Not to insult you or anything but you are an idiot." Just because they preface it by saying that they don't want to piss on the first amendment. If YOU read the whole thing you'll see they are trying to broaden a couple of decisions to be so all-encompassing and vague that even this message I am writing right now will be covered if there happens to be a minor reading it who gets offended.

You were that easily fooled? It's exactly like saying - "Not to insult you or anything but you are an idiot." Just because they preface it by saying that they don't want to piss on the first amendment. If YOU read the whole thing you'll see they are trying to broaden a couple of decisions to be so all-encompassing and vague that even this message I am writing right now will be covered if there happens to be a minor reading it who gets offended.

They might be nuanced considerations, but the considerations lead to some really, really stupid consequences. The VC blog [volokh.com] has some more level-headed analysis of their proposal.

The end result is still that the proposed limitations on free speech will lead to some serious abuses. Not to mention that I find it strangely disturbing that a human being of 20 years, 11 months and 360 days is described as a child.

It's not complete crazy talk, and, unlike some others, find it an idea that should be discussed in the open. And then the idea should be shot into itty, bitty little philosophical pieces.

How nice, you posted a few select bits and pieces where they SAY the 1st Amendment is important, but didn't post the bits and pieces where they say the 1st Amendment sucks and should only be applied half of the time. Did you miss these parts:

[Freedom of speech] should be treated not as a right but as a privilege -- a special
entitlement granted by the state on a conditional basis that can be revoked
if it is ever abused or maltreated.

In the case of cyberbullying, the perceived protections of free speech are
exactly what enable harmful speech and cruel behavior on the internet. it is
the notion that people can post anything they want, regardless of the harm
it might cause another person that has perpetuated, if not created, this
cyberbullying culture. but "hate speech" that causes material harm to
children should have consequences.

In summary, although speech is generally protected under the first
amendment, there are instances in which restrictions are warranted.

Quick! Save the children from the hate speech!! Freedom of Speech will not be abridged except when it will be.

Proponents of a more refined First Amendment argue that this freedom should be treated not as a right but as a privilege — a special entitlement granted by the state on a conditional basis that can be revoked if it is ever abused or maltreated.

Because what usually results from rules like this is the indirect results are more likely to be what people fall victim too. There will be a good chance of prosecutions versus people who did not know the audience was a protected age range and there will be ambushers using this law. Throw in adults hit with the law by protected age people claiming offense when none was directed towards the affected group, yet the affected group claims offense.

It's pretty much irrelevant what they're proposing, because they're trying to fix something that really doesn't need fixing. In fact, if anything their solution makes the problem worse.

The correct solution is to help kids deal with emotional and verbal abuse, not try to outlaw it. You're not doing anyone any favors by putting them in a protective shell until they hit a certain age, then releasing them into the wild to get hammered by all the nasty stuff Real Life has to offer all at once. Some parts of life suck. But you have to learn to deal.

The correct solution is to help kids deal with emotional and verbal abuse, not try to outlaw it.

The correct solution is to help emotional and verbal abusers stop emotionally and verbally abusing people, not try to outlaw it. Only helping kids deal with it is like only helping the victims of any crime--it doesn't actually disincentivize the behavior on the part of the abuser.

Just because someone should have a thick enough skin or enough self-confidence to shrug off a verbal attack does not mean that someone else should be making that attack.

From personal experience, I agree. In high school, I was bullied so much by one group of kids (who would ignore me if they passed me in the hall individually) that I became paranoid. Any laughter I heard, I assumed was directed at me. I didn't feel like I could talk to my parents or teachers, I only had one friend I felt comfortable confiding in. I couldn't fight back since a) I didn't want to get in trouble and b) even if I did, the five or six of them could easily beat me up. I ignored them the best I could, but that just bottles the feelings up. I dreaded going to school every day because I knew I'd be tormented at every turn.

My one friend finally spoke with the bullies (late in senior year). They thought they were just having some fun and didn't realize there were consequences. Although they stopped, it took many years of college before I recovered. In some ways, I've never recovered and never will.

Fighting bullying needs a three pronged approach. You need to help the kids who are bullied, educate the bullies as to the consequences for their actions, and, should the bullies not care about the bullied child at all, have some legal recourse to take against them. If cappp's assessment is right, this is a good thing. We might have freedom of speech but that doesn't mean we get to say whatever we want without any consequences.

Funny, I learned to ignore bullying quite early on...that led fairly quickly to.being accepted by a large.swath of kids.

Part of growing up is learning to deal with adversity and what in general can be a.cruel world that doesn't give a shit about your precious self esteem....part of this experience is learning to grow your skin a bit thicker, and learn the only person you should really care about their thoughts of you...is yourself...

That they left you alone probably only means they found easier victims, you were no fun. For everybody who thinks this is the solution to end bullying, I'd quote this old story:

Two guys are hiking in the Alaskan wilderness when they realize they're being stalked by a hungry grizzly bear. One of them bends down to tighten his shoelaces, stretches and discards his backpack. His partner asks him if he seriously thinks he can outrun a bear. "No," he replies, "but all I have to do is outrun you."

The bear is the bully and you are the faster runner. It saves you but someone will be the slowest runner. And it doesn't matter how hard a shell he has because they're going to pound and jab and poke at it until they find some angle that hurts or just wears you down. Being frozen out is hardly the worst kind of bullying there is, a l

In so far as they would consider abolishing freedom of association: they are going against their oath to uphold The Constitution of the United States. It suggests they don't consider their promise to the public when discussing or possibly deciding legislation. It suggests they think of themselves as rulers instead of public servants.

For example, if a corporation were to discuss defrauding the public as a way to solve a particular problem; people would generally be upset on finding out. With a company you

It will never happen. Those guys do not understand the U.S. Constitution, if that is their true goal. It would probably be best that the citizens of those states that elected those individuals vote them or impeach them out.

That's all well and good, for you collectivists. (Obviously, you are one, or you wouldn't have thought of that argument.) Now - what about individualists? Minorities? Are minorities part of the collective? Who runs this collective, anyway? Does being a congressman put you in charge of the collective?

Stuff it up your collective asses. Free speech means a man can speak his mind, and not give a small damn what liberals, conservatives, or even libertarians might think. Individual men and women enjoy th

In Canada, we do not have free speech in absolute terms like our southern counterparts. The difference between us and what those senators are suggesting is that we have a Charter of Rights which protects us from any attempt of gov't approved censorship. It can be annoying at times, but it keeps the holocaust deniers at bay.

Cultures who outlaw dickwads are at the mercy of those who define the term "dickwad." Wait until your favorite religion/race/affiliation/cereal-brand is a "hate crime."

This is why, as a morally and theologically conservative Christian, I would describe myself as libertarian. The more power you give the government to enforce your views, the more power you give the government to use against you.

Are you saying that people shouldn't be able to voice that kind of opinion?

If people listen to your words, then I believe they are at fault (and partly you, but I don't care about the person who said it). If they act 'irrationally', then I think punishment should go to them (if necessary or if possible).

I suspect you weren't listening. It was pretty clear to me.In a free society, you are free to do things. However, you are also responsible for the things you do (with freedom comes responsibility). Your implied concept that freedom must mean the abrogation of responsibility, then you're building the foundations of a lunatic asylum. There are already a whole slew of things that you're free to say, but reap the downside of (slander etc.).I suspect the intention of "free speech" was to prevent the government repressing the people, not being able to speak out against tyranny and being forced to be mere silent pawns of the state (you know, kind of how the peasantry of England was at the time of the war of independence).Instead, you now have abusive petty tyrants in the thousands who believe they have the absolute right to bully, demean and abuse people by way of words and expressions, and somehow, it's magically OK to do this because they're guaranteed freedom of speech, supposedly with no repercussion or consequence to their actions? This is definitely not the utopia imagined; more of a dystopia that wasn't even imagined back then. Actions have consequences.The idea of freedom is you get to choose the consequences, good or bad. Same as you get the choice about whether to pick a potato from the fire with a toasting fork, or use your bare hand.If people listen to the words, that's up to them. It gives you no real idea of their thoughts on it. As soon as they act on it, you know, and that's when you punish the illegal. However, incitement to crimes doesn't let you walk away free, as far as I believe.. Same as you'd be unhappy if someone kept threatening (in a serious way) to kill you, and asking people around to rough you up. Would you be happy that he was perfectly free to pursue this activity as 'just words' and fight for their freedom to say them? Or would you turn round and say "This guy's nuts, this is just plain dangerous and insane" and request that the cops do something?Know what I'd do.. Request that this loon reap the consequences of their actions (speech is an action).

In a free society, you are free to do things. However, you are also responsible for the things you do (with freedom comes responsibility)...There are already a whole slew of things that you're free to say, but reap the downside of (slander etc.).

I never understood that argument. Is there any society that is not free by that measure? In a dictatorship, you're free to speak out against the government. They'll arrest you for it, but that's the consequence of your speech, right?

I think you confuse consequences with punishment. Freedom necessarily means you won't be punished for the action you're free to do. That doesn't mean there are no consequences. Let's use the cyber-bullying as an example. You're free to say mean things about somebody on th

Yeah, but what if someone yells "fire" in a crowded theater? Clearly an intelligent person would instantly believe them and then trample over everyone else (it's not your fault for trampling over them, though) to save their own skin!

In Canada, we do not have free speech in absolute terms like our southern counterparts. The difference between us and what those senators are suggesting is that we have a Charter of Rights which protects us from any attempt of gov't approved censorship. It can be annoying at times, but it keeps the holocaust deniers at bay.

We actually have massive government-perpetrated censorship. So-called "human rights commissions", which are government bureaucracies, impose large fines, with no real legal recourse, on those targets (carefully chosen, of course) who violate the supposed rights of others not to be offended. As long as those others are members of the correct groups, of course.

I know a lot of people in general, and Slashdot readers in particular, won't/don't agree with many of Ezra Levant's positions, but he's done more to sh

Democrats always seem to be more for censorship. Look at Tipper Gore. Perfect example.

I'm largely OK with the first amendment as it stands, though I would like some clarifying language about freedom of speech not being freedom of corruption. It is widely perceived that Congress are a bunch of whores, collectively for-sale to the highest... well... any... bidder. As this perception is corrosive to our system of government, any activities that contribute to these views should not be allowed. I would argue t

If excluding someone from a group is cyberbullying and cyberbullying is illegal, then that would presumably apply to all committees, press conferences, political funding bodies, etc. Right? Or is it only groups out of favour with the politicians in power who can't exclude?

They (the US) spent HALF the second world war fighting the Nazis, the other half selling them computers to help round up the jews. The gov of the US has a long history of helping bad men rule innocent people with an iron fist. The only thing new here is that they're doing it to YOU.

Once I was in World of Warcraft (to judge me!) and I was inviting folks to a dungeon group in The Deadmines. I'm a nice guy and nothing rude was said, however one kid messaged and asked if he could come - I said "no, you're too low level" (we had no high-level toons running us through, and the highest member of the group so far was level 17 - kid was level 13 - backstory for anyone familiar with the game:)).

Anywho, he replied "You have to take me!!!!" when I said no, he replied "I'm reporting you to a GM!!

The standing precedent is that the First Amendment is really just a law against "prior restraint." In other words, the courts have decided that, the First Amendment just says the government can't stop you from speaking. However, they can punish you for your speech after you do it!

I think most normal people would find this interpretation of the First Amendment as ridiculous. But guess what? It is the precedent that our courts have upheld.

That's an interesting perspective. Care to back it up with actual precedent? While doing so, please dispel if possible* the common concept of "chilling effect", which couldn't possibly exist as a consideration before the law if your assertion were true.

*Here's a hint: don't even bother trying. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that laws punishing, for instance, political speech is effectively prior restraint and specifically uses the phrase "chilling effect" or "deterring effect" to describe the situati

Previous poster beat me to it, so here is another: thought crimes involving taboo subjects of the moment, like writing "child pornography" fiction, drawing "child pornography" cartoons or even just attempting to write a scholarly text on the subject, a work that disagrees with the official stance of the Holy Inquisition and which points out the psychotic attitude towards sex and minors in modern societies. People are in jail for this, and other "free speech we didn't like" crimes in the USA.

Writing a book that glorifies the aims of the current "enemies of the state", such as for example Al-Queda, is also likely to deprive you of your freedom, this time even bypassing the judicial system all-together and straight into some secret "detention centre" complete with "enhanced interrogation techniques" or should your book become too popular, simply executed without any due course whatsoever, something that has been demonstrated rather forcefully just a few days back.

Just to drive it home, since the summary and article avoid it scrupulously, this is a Democratic party proposal from an 'Independent Democratic Conference'.

Not because I think the Republicans are any better, but people seem to need reminding that both major political parties hate the Bill of Rights and love short sighted dangerous 'fixes' for whatever they think today's social panic is.

I find the whole fixation on "cyberbulling" to be stupid and offensive.

No one's forcing these kids to commit suicide. No one is killing them. But more importantly, no one is helping them deal with the emotional/verbal abuse either.

Being emotionally/verbally abused or bullied is a part of life. It's GOING to happen. It sucks, but that's how it is. The correct solution is for adults to help kids learn how to deal with it, not find ways to make it illegal.

Christ. To get to the original source article [nysenate.gov], you have to click links through two different intermediate sites, one of which is the Volokh Conspiracy, which while always interesting is not exactly an unbiased source.

Remember kids, when you get your news from Slashdot, you're getting it fourth-hand. It's good to read the news, it protects your rights as a citizen. Kinda like a condom. But do you really want to protect yourself with a fourth-hand condom?

Anyway, on to the meat of the matter: the original article doesn't clearly come down on the side of the scare-quote that's being passed around. It says, IN ALL CAPS FOR GOD'S SAKE, that some people think free speech rights should never be limited, while others think a less extreme approach, with exceptions for grievous harm to others, is needed. Its tone does seem to suggest it favors the latter, which is disturbing, but as an "oh my God these guys want to burn the Constitution" freakout document, it lacks a little punch.

If you look at what our government has done over the past decade, it seems as though most people don't give a shit and will put up with almost any infringement of their rights as long as they can post on Facebook.